Biglaw is 4 for 4. Four times firms have challenged Executive Orders targeting their firms, and, in front of four different judges, have won temporary restraining orders blocking enforcement of the key provisions of the EOs.
The most recent firm to notch this key W in the fight against Donald Trump is Susman Godfrey. Yesterday, Judge Loren AliKhan issued a TRO enjoining sections 1, 3, and 5 of the EO, related to the firm’s access to federal buildings and work with contractors. Judge AliKhan pulled exactly zero punches, noting “The executive order specifically targets lawyers because of the clients that they represented. The executive order is based on a personal vendetta against a particular firm. And, frankly, I think the framers of our Constitution would view it as a shocking abuse of power.” This language, while forceful, echoes the sentiments of judges Beryl Howell, John Bates and Richard Leon who are overseeing the cases brought by Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and WilmerHale against similar EOs.
Judge AliKhan’s comments also called out the Biglaw firms bending a knee to Donald Trump to avoid the exact legal fight that Susman is nailing. “Law firms across the country are entering into agreements with the government out of fear that they will be targeted next,” she noted. “And while I wish other firms were not capitulating as readily, I admire firms like Susman for standing up and challenging it when this does threaten the very existence of their business,” AliKhan said.
Plus she pointed out just how foolhardy the Biglaw deals are, “For the many firms that have entered into agreements with the administration, there’s nothing stopping the government from returning to target them in the future.” It’s a lesson Lando Calrissian had to learn the hard way.
Susman Godfrey provided the following comment on the court victory, noting the import of the legal battle goes beyond the firm, “This fight is bigger and more important than any one firm. Susman Godfrey is fighting this unconstitutional executive order because it infringes on the rights of all Americans and the rule of law. This fight is right, it is just, and we are duty-bound to pursue it. We are grateful the court directly addressed the unconstitutionality of the executive order by recognizing it as a ‘shocking abuse of power.’”
Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of The Jabot podcast, and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter @Kathryn1 or Mastodon @Kathryn1@mastodon.social.
The post Granting Susman Godfrey A Temporary Restraining Order, Judge Calls Out The Cowardly Biglaw Firms Inking Deals With Trump appeared first on Above the Law.
Biglaw is 4 for 4. Four times firms have challenged Executive Orders targeting their firms, and, in front of four different judges, have won temporary restraining orders blocking enforcement of the key provisions of the EOs.
The most recent firm to notch this key W in the fight against Donald Trump is Susman Godfrey. Yesterday, Judge Loren AliKhan issued a TRO enjoining sections 1, 3, and 5 of the EO, related to the firm’s access to federal buildings and work with contractors. Judge AliKhan pulled exactly zero punches, noting “The executive order specifically targets lawyers because of the clients that they represented. The executive order is based on a personal vendetta against a particular firm. And, frankly, I think the framers of our Constitution would view it as a shocking abuse of power.” This language, while forceful, echoes the sentiments of judges Beryl Howell, John Bates and Richard Leon who are overseeing the cases brought by Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and WilmerHale against similar EOs.
Judge AliKhan’s comments also called out the Biglaw firms bending a knee to Donald Trump to avoid the exact legal fight that Susman is nailing. “Law firms across the country are entering into agreements with the government out of fear that they will be targeted next,” she noted. “And while I wish other firms were not capitulating as readily, I admire firms like Susman for standing up and challenging it when this does threaten the very existence of their business,” AliKhan said.
Plus she pointed out just how foolhardy the Biglaw deals are, “For the many firms that have entered into agreements with the administration, there’s nothing stopping the government from returning to target them in the future.” It’s a lesson Lando Calrissian had to learn the hard way.
Susman Godfrey provided the following comment on the court victory, noting the import of the legal battle goes beyond the firm, “This fight is bigger and more important than any one firm. Susman Godfrey is fighting this unconstitutional executive order because it infringes on the rights of all Americans and the rule of law. This fight is right, it is just, and we are duty-bound to pursue it. We are grateful the court directly addressed the unconstitutionality of the executive order by recognizing it as a ‘shocking abuse of power.’”
Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of The Jabot podcast, and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter @Kathryn1 or Mastodon @[email protected].
